Hi everybody,

I don´t remember where I read about this discussion, but I´m posting an image I found sometime ago (i´m sorry because I don't remember who's the owner).

I´ve been with this doubt lately, we see the evolution of coat of plates into brigandines. I understand that the brigandine, althought has smaller plates, is better than the CoP because of it´s great mobility and follows the fashion of the time. And sewed in fabric is good against weather and easier to do than plate armour.

My doubt is why the plate armours, I mean the "full plate" like XV/XVI cent armours weren´t covered with fabric to protect against the weather? Or the armours which survived doesnt´t have because the fabric didn´t survived? Also, they wore tunics over mail, and their brigandines were designed like their blasons. Why at the XV cent. armours the nobles didn´t have any distinguition?

These doubts came when I saw this piece of armour (mentioned in the beginning of this thread)

[ Linked Image ]

Sorry for any english mistakes, and thank a lot in advance!

_________________________________________
Bruno Cerkvenik
www.arsgladiatoria.wordpress.com

I'm curious about the same thing, and was going to post this same questions a few days ago.

In this painting there's lot of cloth...


And in this one caught my attention because of the legs.



Artistic freedom? Or linen or velvet covering?

If your question is only if plate armour was every covered by fabric the answer is yes. We know plate at times was covered by fabric as we have examples such as the Munich Breastplate that are just that.

The why it was done is a bigger question and one for which I think we have only good educated guesses.

RPM

Thank you very much!

Those images really helped and I found a thread the munich breastplate.

http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...mp;start=0

My doubt is gone! :D